Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) writes with news that we may soon learn which countries were sold the FinFisher malware package to spy on their own citizens. "The UK's High Court ruled yesterday that HM Revenue and Customs acted 'unlawfully' when it declined to detail how it was investigating the export of digital spy tools created by a British company. Human rights group Privacy International is celebrating the decision of Mr. Justice Green, which means HMRC now has to reconsider releasing information on its investigation into controls surrounding the export of malware known as FinFisher, created by British supplier Gamma International. The widespread FinFisher malware family, also known as FinSpy, can carry out a range of surveillance operations, from snooping on Skype and Facebook conversations to siphoning off emails or files sitting on a device. It is supposed to benefit law enforcement in their investigations, but has allegedly been found in various nations with poor human rights records, including Bahrain and Ethiopia."

You should be subject to criminal and civil penalties, forfeiture of assets, and having your own ass dragged off in the night to be tortured. Because you've clearly decided to enable to same things to happen to others.

And now you're trying to have someone hauled off to be tortured, so you should be too. Oh shit, I'm doing the same thing!

If you directly assist someone in kidnapping, you are guilty. If you directly assist someone in murder, you are guilty.

If you directly assist someone in the spying and eventual torture or death of someone at the hands of a government you knew would do that... by your reasoning your magically excused?

I'm simply saying that if you assist someone in the commission of something which would be a crime where your business is based, assisting them to do the same thing in another country doesn't change a damned thing.

Companies who knowingly sell these things to countries they know will abuse it are not suddenly absolved of being culpable for the things their products have been designed for.

Selling this stuff to these regimes is little different than being an art dealer for the Nazis, or selling munitions to Iran -- you know it's causing harm, but you're profiting off it. As a result, you should be subject to legal recourse.

And if your name is similar to someone who *might* do something the government doesn't like, you're guilty.

None of this "I was just following orders/trying to make money" shit. You knowingly sold stuff to a government who is going to use it for things which are likely illegal in your own country.

So you argue that companies like say Ericsson or NSN should not sell mobile network equipment to e.g. the USA, as that government consistently uses the legal intercept possibilities of the equipment for the purpose of tracking down criminals they eventually kill (here in the civilized world, the death penalty is considered a human rights violation). While at the same time, it is completely OK for Huawei or Motorola to sell similar stuff, also to the USA?If you really meant that, then I do salute your moral

The crime victim [sic] is not in this loop at all...Any operator in the USA is required by law to yield lawful intercept requests from the government (i.e. police). Arguing here that the networks are not sold to the government, but independent busineses is just the sort of white-washing/denialism that GP was supposedly opposed to. Look e.g. at what happened with the NSN equipment in Iran a few yeas back... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_Solutions_and_Networks#Lawful_interception_controversy [wikipedia.org]

It is supposed to benefit law enforcement in their investigations, but has allegedly been found in various nations with poor human rights records, including Bahrain and Ethiopia.

So is it only a problem when repressive regimes use surveillance software to oppress their population? When first world nations use such software, they're also violating the rights of their citizens. Just because it "benefits law enforcement" doesn't excuse its existence. Parallel construction also benefits law enforcement.

It's like the difference between surveillance in park A being used to identify people spraying graffiti AND ARRESTING THEM vs. surveillance in park B being used to identify people criticizing public officials AND ARRESTING THEM.

Have any relevant analogies to make, because that isn't one.

Why people focus on the surveillance activities as some evil greater than the actual abuses of authority

Why have you missed out on "parallel construction"? It's when the government takes information illegally gained and lau

Britain and to a larger extent the United States both work hard to prop up repressive regimes they find benefitial to their interests. Somalia, Libya, hell even North Korea has received funds from the british taxpayer since 2012. To think that anyone in parliament gives two shits about some spyware is sadly wrong.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]

Spyware such as FinFisher is a weapon and should be treated as such under the same export restrictions most western countries apply to guns, warplanes, ships, etc. The trick would be in differentiating the covert tracking, surveillance and reporting that something like FinFisher does for nefarious purposes from the "normal" covert tracking, surveillance and reporting that many smart phone apps do for commercial purposes.

The trick would be in differentiating the covert tracking, surveillance and reporting that something like FinFisher does for nefarious purposes from the "normal" covert tracking, surveillance and reporting that many smart phone apps do for commercial purposes.

Why don't Facebook and Skype (Microsoft) take these companies to court? Why won't the UK government?These companies are making money off of a tool specifically made to break the law and most likely used to spy on some British citizens (abroad).